Ces mémoires donnent un aperçu des préoccupations et des recommandations concernant les sections 38 et 39 du projet de loi C-69.
Le mémoire du Sénat a été soumis le 27 mai 2024 et celui du Comité des finances de la Chambre des communes a été soumis le 31 mai 2024.
(Veuillez noter que ce document n'a pas été traduit par le CCR mais par le service de traduction du Sénat)
Le CCR demande l’élimination des dispositions de la Loi d’exécution du budget, le projet de loi omnibus C-97, qui réduisent de façon importante les droits des demandeurs d’asile. Les modifications proposées au système de détermination du statut de réfugié exposent de nombreuses personnes à un risque accru d’être renvoyées dans leur pays et confrontées à la persécution, ce qui va à l’encontre de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et des obligations internationales du Canada à l’égard des droits humains.
Le présent mémoire est soumis au Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration dans le cadre de l’étude amorcée par le Comité en février 2018 sur le processus de nomination, la formation offerte aux commissaires, particulièrement en matière de sensibilité culturelle, d’orientation sexuelle, d’identité sexuelle et de sensibilité à l’expression sexuelle ainsi que le traitement des plaintes de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (CISR).
Ceci est le rapport d'un projet de recherche mené par le CCR et certains de ses membres, concernant les expériences des demandeurs d'asile dans le nouveau système d'asile (depuis décembre 2012). La recherche se penchait surtout sur les expériences des demandeurs d'asile dans l'audience sur leur demande.
La loi C-31 a reçu la sanction royale le 28 juin 2012. La plupart des dispositions de cette loi concernant le système de détermination du statut de réfugié sont entrées en vigueur le 15 décembre 2012.
Voici quelques-uns des points qui suscitent l’inquiétude du CCR :
Le nouveau système impose des délais irréalistes à tous les demandeurs d’asile et désavantage particulièrement les réfugiés les plus vulnérables, notamment les victimes de torture ou de violences sexuelles, les femmes victimes de harcèlement en raison de leur sexe, et les réfugiés fuyant les persécutions liés à leur orientation sexuelle.
Ces modifications donnent au ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration de pouvoirs étendus pour désigner les pays d’origine. Les demandeurs provenant de ces pays se verront imposer des délais encore plus courts et n’auront donc plus suffisamment de temps pour présenter leur situation de réfugié (une audience doit avoir lieu après 45 jours, ou après 30 jours si la demande est déposée depuis le Canada). Ils se verront également refuser le droit d’interjeter appel à la Section d’appel des réfugiés, et seront confrontés à une déportation immédiate après une décision négative, même s’ils sollicitent un contrôle judiciaire de cette décision. Ces dispositions augmenteront les risques d’erreurs, sans aucune possibilité de rectification. Les réfugiés seront finalement déportés et se retrouveront en danger de subir des persécutions.
La loi modifiée octroie au ministre de la Sécurité publique un pouvoir discrétionnaire subjectif pour désigner deux ressortissants étrangers ou plus en tant que groupe en « arrivée irrégulière » en se fondant sur une commodité administrative ou la suspicion d’ « organisation d’entrée illégale ». Les conséquences de cette désignation comprennent :
Le 5 décembre dernier, le ministre de la Sécurité publique a annoncé la désignation de cinq groupes de personnes; des groupes comprenant de nombreux enfants.
Depuis le 15 août 2012, les demandeurs dont le statut de réfugié a été refusé ne sont plus admissibles à l’Examen des risques avant le renvoi, et ce, pour une période d’un an suivant le refus, et de trois ans dans le cas de demandeurs ressortissants d’un pays désigné. Ceci signifie qu’ils ne disposent d’aucune possibilité de soumettre de nouvelles preuves de risque qui pourraient devenir disponibles entre le refus et le renvoi.
Les demandeurs du statut de réfugiés ne sont plus autorisés à déposer une demande pour motifs d’ordre humanitaire au cours de l’année suivant un refus, sauf s’ils peuvent prouver qu’il y va de l’intérêt supérieur d’un enfant ou s’ils souffrent d’une maladie grave potentiellement mortelle. Les ressortissants étrangers désignés ne peuvent pas déposer une demande pour quelque motif que ce soit pendant cinq ans. Ces modifications ont pour effet que la plupart des personnes ne disposent d’aucune possibilité de présenter des considérations humanitaires irréfutables avant le renvoi.
Le CCR s’inquiète au plus haut point à propos de la manière négative dont sont traités les demandeurs d’asile dans les propos du gouvernement. En regard aux lois canadiennes et internationales, toute personne a le droit de présenter une demande d’asile pour fuir des persécutions. Il n’est pas juste non plus de prétendre que les demandes refusées sont nécessairement frauduleuses ou abusives. La définition de réfugié est restrictive et technique. De nombreuses personnes, dont les cas ne correspondent pas à la définition établie, ont réellement besoin de protection. Des références négatives constantes déstabilisent l’indépendance du système canadien pour les réfugiés et affaiblissent le soutien des Canadiens en faveur des personnes qui viennent au pays à la recherche de la sécurité et de la liberté, et pour être traitées avec dignité.
Pour en savoir plus sur le système des réfugiés, consulter http://ccrweb.ca/fr/la-reforme-refugies
What does it take to win protection? Lessons from the Song Dae Ri case
The case of Song Dae Ri, a refugee claimant from North Korea, has recently attracted the attention of the Canadian public. According to media reports, Mr Ri was denied refugee protection by the Immigration and Refugee Board on the grounds that he was deemed undeserving of Canada's protection because he served in the North Korean government as a trade official.(1) The danger to Mr Ri if returned to North Korea does not appear to be in doubt: he is expected to be executed. His wife has already been executed. Mr Ri’s six-year-old son was accepted as a refugee.
The case illustrates a number of flaws in Canada's refugee determination system.
Broad application of exclusion clauses
Mr Ri has been found to be undeserving of Canada’s protection because of his participation in the North Korean government. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees excludes people from refugee protection if there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed various categories of serious crimes.(2) Canada gives a very broad interpretation to these provisions, known as exclusion clauses. Refugee claimants in Canada are often denied refugee protection not because they have committed a crime themselves but because they have been in some way associated with others who have committed crimes (for example, young men conscripted into an army that has committed abuses). Mr Ri is not being accused of having himself committed any crime, but has been found guilty by association because of his membership in the North Korean government.(3)
IRB appointments
Refugee claims in Canada are heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) which is made up of members appointed in a political process. A single Board member hears and decides each refugee claim. The quality of the Board members varies greatly, largely because appointments are made based on partisan political considerations, rather than on who the most competent candidates are. As a result, refugee determination can resemble a lottery: if a claimant happens to appear before one member she may be accepted, while the same claimant might be refused if another member hears the case. In Mr Ri’s case, it is reasonable to suppose that if he had been heard by another Board member he might have been granted refugee protection.
Lack of appeal
Mr Ri has been denied any appeal on the merits of the decision that he is not deserving of Canada’s protection. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as passed by Parliament, includes a right of appeal for refused refugee claimants. However, the government has not implemented this part of the law and has failed to live up to its promises to implement the appeal. As a result, a single board member’s decision that Mr Ri is not deserving of protection goes without review, even though this decision exposes Mr Ri to execution and even though another board member might have decided the case differently. The only way to review a decision on a refugee claim is by applying for judicial review to the Federal Court, but this review is only available if the Court grants permission. In Mr Ri’s case, the Court did not grant permission.
Excessive complexity of the system
Mr Ri’s experience illustrates the unnecessary complexity of the refugee determination system. Instead of having a simple and fair process to determine who should be protected, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act creates categories of people who can’t have their refugee claim heard or granted by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and then establishes a separate (and flawed) process to review those cases. A person such as Ri who has been excluded cannot be granted refugee protection by the Immigration and Refugee Board, but may be granted a temporary stay of removal in a process called the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. This assessment itself involves three separate decisions: one to assess the risk to Ri, one to assess the danger he represents to Canada and a third to weigh these two decisions.
This process, already complicated, has recently become yet more confused with the decision by the Prime Minister to send some immigration functions to the newly created Canada Border Services Agency.(4) There are now not only three individual decisions involved, but also two separate departments. The decision on the risk is made by an official at the Canada Border Services Agency, while the decision on danger to Canada and the weighing of the two earlier decisions are made by two separate officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Perversely, the protection opinion is done by the enforcement agency (Canada Border Service Agency) while the opinion on the enforcement-related matters is done by the department that is supposed to be responsible for protecting refugees and immigrants (Citizenship and Immigration Canada).
Failure to respect the absolute bar on return to torture
Canada is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture which prohibits absolutely the return of any human being to torture. This prohibition reflects the international community’s abhorrence for torture: no one deserves to be tortured, no matter what crimes he may have committed. Canada has however refused to incorporate this absolute prohibition into its domestic law, leaving the door open to returning people to torture and even death. This is wrong in international law. Since Canadian law does not prohibit return to torture and death, Mr Ri faces the prospect of being deported from Canada, even though the government acknowledges that he would likely be executed.
Absence of provisions for family unity for refugee children
A person who is recognized as a refugee in Canada can include their spouse or common-law partner and dependent children in their application for permanent residence. This means that if a parent is accepted as a refugee and the children are refused refugee status, the children do not face deportation. However, the reverse does not apply: the law does not allow a child to include his or her parents in the application for permanent residence. Mr Ri’s six-year-old son has been accepted as a refugee but he cannot include his father on his permanent residence application and thus faces the prospect of being separated from his one remaining parent (and orphaned, since his father is threatened with execution). Similarly, if an unaccompanied child comes to Canada and is recognized as a refugee, there is nothing in the law to allow that child to be reunited in Canada with his or her parents and siblings.
1. The Canadian Council for Refugees' knowledge of this particular case is drawn from media reports.
2. The Refugee Convention states that its provisions "shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (Article 1F). Mr Ri was excluded based on paragraph a).
3. Canada doesn't follow UNHCR Guidelines on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses (4 September 2003) which recommend that decision-makers first consider the persecution that the claimant would face, and only then consider whether the exclusion clauses may apply. This allows a balancing of the consequences of exclusion against the gravity of the offense. In the Canadian process, the reverse occurs, with the arguments on exclusion being considered first. The guidelines also make clear that exclusion is only justified if there is shown to be individual responsibility for the crimes committed: "In general, individual responsibility flows from the person having committed, or made a substantial contribution to the commission of the criminal act, in the knowledge that his or her act or omission would facilitate the criminal conduct." (Para. 18)
4. This was done in a series of Orders in Council adopted 12 December 2003.